What Is A Woman?

Since time immemorial, the question of what a woman is has haunted humanity like a specter. How could you possibly even understand, let alone define such a thing? Recently, as trans theories have spread, there has been renewed interest in this question by essentialists that want to restrict womanhood (and all the stereotypes and expressions of women) in an immutable biological essence. (READ MORE)

Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Instagram
Patreon

Is Biological Sex Observed or Assigned?

Nowadays, many institutions, especially medical institutions, refer to a person’s biological sex as their sex assigned at birth. This has been from the influence of trans theories: i.e., any theory which believes a person can change their gender and/or their sex characteristics. (VIEW MORE)

Citations:

Let’s Talk About Intersex [ANIMATION] • trf

Research on Brain Sex:

Mosaic hypothesis of brain sexual dimorphism:

Joel, Daphna. Male or female? Brains are intersex. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience. Volume 5 | Article 57. 2011.

Joel, Daphna et al. Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic. 2015.

Joel, Daphna et al. The Complex Relationships between Sex and the Brain. The Neuroscientist. 2019.

Joel D, Fausto-Sterling A. 2016 Beyond sex differences: new approaches for thinking about variation in brain structure and function. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371:20150451.

Critique of Mosaic Hypothesis:

Giudicea, Marco Del, et al. Joel et al.’s method systematically fails to detect large, consistent sex differences. 2016.

Rosenblatta, Jonathan D. Multivariate revisit to “sex beyond the genitalia”.

Glezermana, Marek. Yes,there is a female and a male brain: Morphology versus functionality. 2016.

Skepticism of Brain Sex:

McCarthy & Konkle. When is a sex difference not a sex difference? Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 26 (2005).

Eliot, Lisa et al. Dump the “dimorphism”: Comprehensive synthesis of human brain studies reveals few male-female differences beyond size. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 125 (2021).

Gender Identity in Trans Children:

Olson, Kristina R. et al. Gender Cognition in Transgender Children. Psychological Science 2015, Vol. 26(4).

Michael Zaliznyak, BA and others, How Early in Life do Transgender Adults Begin to Experience Gender Dysphoria? Why This Matters for Patients, Providers, and for Our Healthcare System, Sexual Medicine, Volume 9, Issue 6, December 2021, Page 100448.

Kennedy & Helen. Transgender Children: More Than a Theoretical Challenge. Graduate Journal of Social Science. Vol 7 | Issue 10 | December 2010 (25-43).

PHILOSOPHY


Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Instagram
Patreon

Was Jesus Transgender?

TRANSCRIPT:

Was Jesus transgender? The very question keeps me up most nights in quiet contemplation. Yet, if pronouns are inherently biological as Mr. Shapiro and his ilk insist on, I can’t find any logical reason to answer in the negative. Jesus is clearly transgender.

If people like Shapiro are right, then pronouns naturally emanate from a person’s chromosomes as forgetfullness naturally emanate from Joe Biden & Diane Feinstein. Just as a pimple oozes puss, so to do genitalia ooze pronouns. But, Jesus is no ordinary pimple. If the Christians are right then, Jesus is no ordinary human puss-bucket of organs and moistness. Jesus is God become man! A puny mortal man at that!

(and yes, I understand Shapiro is a jew, not Christian but, JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUES GODDAMNIT!)

Did Jesus have XY karyotype? Did he have a male phenotype? [Whisper & echo] Did Jesus have a penis?

Well, he must have! Otherwise why would we be calling him he throughout the bible?

And yet, the good books seems to be hiding a darker truth than we ever imagined. The Tanakh, the New Testament of the Bible, and the Quran all refer to God as a He. But, not just any He, a capitalized He. Yet, God has no chromosomes. He has no puny mortal body, or a body of any kind (well, unless he’s Mormon) [show religulous clip]. But let’s just safely assume God isn’t Mormon

[whisper] He’s actually a scientologist! [flash a crazy pic of Tom Cruise, and end with Southpark Lord Xenu laugh]

This means that God’s pronouns must come from some other source. God is certainly a He; His gender is Male. But, not some puny mortal male. No, God’s gender is divine. He transcends karyotype, phenotype, animal, vegetable, and mineral damn it! This we can safely assume! But, and it’s a bigger butt than the one I sit on. If God became man through the god-man-boy Jesus, then God transitioned from having a divine gender, to a puny mortal gender. Thus, and I say this with no trepidation, only that which is self-evident shall flow from my mouth, Jesus was transgender.

He was also really gay by the way!

Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Instagram
Patreon

Post-Modernist Rejects Identity Politics | Judith Butler

Judith Butler next to the broken symbol for women's rights

“The feminist ‘we’ is always and only a phantasmatic construction, one that has its purposes, but which denies the internal complexity and indeterminacy of the term and constitutes itself only through the exclusion of some part of the constituency that it simultaneously seeks to represent… The radical instability of the category sets into question the foundational restrictions on feminist political theorizing and opens up other configurations, not only of genders and bodies, but of politics itself.

The foundationalist reasoning of identity politics tends to assume that an identity must first be in place in order for political interests to be elaborated and, subsequently, political action to be taken. My argument is that there need not be a ‘doer behind the deed,’ but that the ‘doer’ is variably constructed in & through the deed.” 194-195

Identity politics’s “reasoning falsely presumes (a) agency can only be established through recourse to a prediscursive ‘I,’ even if that ‘I’ is found in the midst of a discursive convergence, and (b) that to be constituted by discourse is to be determined by discourse, where determination forecloses the possibility of agency.” (195)

“The theories of feminist identity that elaborate predicates of color, sexuality, ethnicity, class, and able-bodiedness invariably close with an embarrassed ‘etc.’ at the end of the list. Through this horizontal trajectory of adjectives, these positions strive to encompass a situated subject, but invariably fail to be complete. This is a sign of exhaustion as well as the illimitable process of signification itself. It is the supplement, the excess that necessarily accompanies any effort to posit identity once & for all.” (196)

“I have tried to suggest that the identity categories often presumed to be foundational to feminist politics, that is deemed necessary in order to mobilize feminism as an identity politics, simultaneously work to limit & constrain in advance the very cultural possibilities that feminism is supposed to open up. The tacit constraints that produce culturally intelligible ‘sex’ ought to be understood as generative political structures rather than naturalized foundations. Paradoxically, the reconceptualization of identity as an effect, that is, as produced or generated, opens up possibilities of ‘agency’ that are insidiously foreclosed by positions that take identity categories as foundational & fixed. For an identity to be an effect means that it is neither fatally determined nor fully artificial & arbitrary. That the constituted status of identity is misconstrued along these two conflicting lines suggests the ways in which the feminist discourse on cultural construction remains trapped within the unnecessary binarism of free will and determinism. Construction is not opposed to agency; it is the necessary scene of agency, the very terms in which agency is articulated & becomes culturally intelligible. The critical task for feminism is not to establish a point of view outside of constructed identities; that conceit is the construction of an epistemological model that would disavow its own cultural location &, hence, promote itself as a global subject, a position that deploys precisely the imperialist strategies that feminism ought to criticize. The critical task is, rather, to locate strategies of subversive repetition enabled by those constructions, to affirm the local possibilities of intervention through participating in precisely those practices of repetition that constitute identity &, therefore, present the immanent possibility of contesting them.” (200-201)

Judith Butler, Gender Trouble

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.


Philosopher Judith Butler rejected feminist identity politics.

Butler states that feminism presupposes a prediscursive subject, a subject prior to any social construction. On the contrary, subjectivity exists only in and through our performance of discursiveness.

In positing a prediscursive identity, feminists claim to rely on a firm foundation for a political action. The identity claims to be totalizing to all who fall into said identity because it precedes there existence. However, such an identity is a fiction and open to great instability. Any politics which proceeds from such an assumption ultimately ends up excluding many of the very individuals it claims to represent. No matter how identities attempt to close themselves off, there is always an etcetera, a remainder, which the identity simply can’t account for.

Butler contends that the identity woman is not prior to the acts a women performs. On the contrary, identities are not the cause, but the effect of acts. This theoretical framework allows identities to always remain open, to evolve or adapt, for such identities are constituted on the performative acts of subjects.

PHILOSOPHY



error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

RSS